The Insider News

The Insider News is for breaking IT and Software development news. Post your news, your alerts and
your inside scoops. This is an IT news-only forum - all off-topic, non-news posts will be
removed. If you wish to ask a programming question please post it
here.

Get The Daily Insider direct to your mailbox every day. Subscribe
now!

Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages

How to create (or destroy) a dev community

And even if VB isn't your favourite language, I think it's still a great read as it applies to other "off the narrow path" technologies and languages that may fall off the support trains.

> Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages (ignoring the fact that they actually make three); it would take an army of developers and content writers at great expense nearly duplicating all effort across the ecosystem at worst or perhaps 10-30% of the (Developer Tools) division resources at best. Today I want to put that misconception to rest.

If I understand correctly, the author is arguing precisely that it is not too expensive or impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages, or even three .NET languages. If there was enough interest in F#, Microsoft could make it as big as Scala.

I still think that the best is to have them written down in a post it below your keyboard.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

I go for an algorithmic solution that might very well be publicised. My passords are composed of three parts: Where, who, and security.

The "where" part is a modified version of the resource name. Eg. for FB (if I had an account there), it might be A**book (asterisk used here only to avoid censorship). "Who" might be my login name at a**book. "Security" is one of a small handful of unlikely terms to be known to brute force attackers, like relative's names with national characters, not used for the last hundred years.

I have got a standard series of misspellings/transformatons - obviously, I do not spell the names of my old relatives "correctly". The three parts usually make a 15-20 character password, too long for brute force.

So I use different passwords on different sites (the "where" part). I use different passwords on sites where I access different accounts (the "who" part). And even if you manage to crack my password at one social site (with a simple "security" part), it won't give you any access to my bank account (which is also protected by a OTP chip).

I have few problems remembering my passords. For encrypted documents on my PC which I haven't accessed for months, I might have to try a couple of times (mostly with with various upper/lower-casing alternatives). Yet, I see my current scheme as far more secure than any password manager.

So I have done our own system.
File container encrypted, difficult to find, a bit camouflage and a very strong password.
In the file container, their document with the passwords to copy paste.

In my case I don't even write the password to copy paste, I write a description that only means something for me, so I can remember the concrete content of the 3 parts.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

It is a pity that Kerberos did not succeed on the web. It obviosly wouldn't relieve us from having to log in in the morning, but the dozens of later logins through the day could have been avoided. It would have given several other benefits as well.

The tragedy of Kerberos, although devevloped in a *nix environmen (at MIT)l, is that Microsoft said: That seems to be a good technology! Then the Open Source world retracted in horror: Then WE certainly is not going to use it! So even if Kerberos was on its way in, it was brutally kicked out, because the dog had sniffed on the feet of The Enemy. That is a pity, because it was a nice and well behaved dog.

I'm not willing to give the report writers information they would need to spam me to read the source. (OTOH the probably fake address reportspam@ftc.gov is getting a link to it addressed keyboardmash.)

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius

Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt

I think I wouldn't like to work in a quantum job.
I don't want to see my monthly income vanish only because I looked at it.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.